new rower, much slower 500m split than gym rowers

[Allan Olesen]

I acknowledge that the elastic cord assists in moving the user's mass forward during the recovery portion of the stroke, but that energy does not flow back into the user's muscles, restoring strength and vigour.

That was not my claim. I wrote it so it couldn't be misunderstood, but I can write it even clearer:
You don't get energy flowing back into your body. You use less energy to return to the catch position.

There is a big difference between these two claims, and your argumentation doesn't work against the latter claim.

Addressing the argument you support by calculations: At the limit of one's exertion, a requirement to provide an extra 2 pounds of force to maintain a target time could be all that is needed for a competitor to "hit the wall" and slump back to a slower pace.

You need to look at it the other way around:
If two identical rowers on two non-identical ergometers row at the same effort, they will get equally exhausted in the same time.

The difference is only in how much of that effort is ending up on the screen in the PM as power, and how much of is eaten by the chord. And I have clearly demonstrated that difference, using your own numbers for added chord tension.

[Slidewinder]

I acknowledge that the elastic cord assists in moving the user's mass forward during the recovery portion of the stroke, but that energy does not flow back into the user's muscles, restoring strength and vigour.

You don't get energy flowing back into your body. You use less energy to return to the catch position.

Addressing the argument you support by calculations: At the limit of one's exertion, a requirement to provide an extra 2 pounds of force to maintain a target time could be all that is needed for a competitor to "hit the wall" and slump back to a slower pace.

You need to look at it the other way around:
If two identical rowers on two non-identical ergometers row at the same effort, they will get equally exhausted in the same time.

The difference is only in how much of that effort is ending up on the screen in the PM as power, and how much of is eaten by the chord. And I have clearly demonstrated that difference, using your own numbers for added chord tension.

On the first point: I acknowledge that with a stronger cord less energy is used to return to the catch position in that it assists in moving the user's mass forward, but stretching a strong elastic cord is nevertheless more tiring than stretching a weak one, just as pulling a heavy weight up a slope is more tiring than pulling a light weight up the same slope, even though the heavy weight assists you more than the light one in returning to the start position. By your reasoning, an elastic cord that requires, say, 50 pounds of force to stretch, would have no effect on performance because even less energy would be used to return to the catch position. You know, and I know, that this is nonsense.


On the second point: Suppose a competitor in an indoor rowing competition, during training, posts 7 minute times on his well-used home unit. This time is at the limit of his strength and endurance. At the official event, on a new machine, with a new cord, he attempts to maintain the same pace, but is unable to because the stronger cord on the new machine is eating up some of his energy and is not showing up on the screen. He is forced to a level of exertion beyond his capacity to obtain the same screen readout of his home unit. Baffled and frustrated, he struggles on, until exhausted, he slumps back to a slower pace - a pace much slower than predicted by your textbook calculations of force/distance/time.


I stated in an earlier post that a 2 pound difference in elastic cord strength for the time and distance of the given example was approximately equivalent to hoisting a 20 pound bag of potatoes through a vertical distance of one-half a foot at every stroke. You have not disputed this. So, over a 2000M distance if I take 240 strokes, then the energy to lift this virtual bag of potatoes 240 times would not be recorded on the monitor. Never mind the rowing, just lifting those potatoes would wear me out, but not to worry, the textbook calculations say, it will only slow me by 2.8 seconds. I know the physics, but I also know what a 20 pound bag of potatoes feels like. I am unconvinced that the math accords with reality.

Finally, let us not forget all of the threads in the forum archives in which users complain that they cannot post the same time on different machines. Common to these complaints is that they are always comparing times posted on new machines or machines with replacement cords to well-used machines. Either all of those people have psychological problems, as other forum members claim, or they are experiencing something real.

[johnlvs2run]

If you row at a rate where you have to actively pull with your feet to return to the catch

Which is always the case, because no one can return without using the tops or heels of their feet.

the increased tension will make you use less power on this.

I have set my feet on top of the foot rests to try this, and the handle did not pull me forward in the least.

Thus I believe that oft repeated argument has no merit. It's like saying lifting 500 pounds from the ground
would be as easy as lifting half that amount, because the energy to set the weight back down would be less.
But even the return in that case is not easier, as returning the heavier weight to the ground is also more difficult.

[marcmartineau]

.....
But even the return in that case is not easier, as returning the heavier weight to the ground is also more difficult.

Ohhh what a realistic statement there ! If only the crossfitters and the gym’s showman could understand this instead of smashing the weight to the ground after lifting, they would get MUCH more stronger ! It annoys me at a cubic power when I see this in a gym. Negative stroke is as much important than the lift movement itself, if not more...

[Allan Olesen]

If you row at a rate where you have to actively pull with your feet to return to the catch

Which is always the case, because no one can return without using the tops or heels of their feet.

No, it is not always the case.

If you row at a low stroke rate, you can return, just by releasing the pressure on the foot rests. You don't have to pull with your feet. That is why you can row strapless at low stroke rates.

If you row at a high stroke rate, you need to actively pull with your feet to return fast enough to the catch. Consequently, you need the straps in this situation.

In the former case you do not save any effort by having a stronger pull from the chord - actually you might even feel more effort, though the difference will be negligible.

In the latter case, the more pull you get from the handle, the less you have to pull in the foot straps. So you save some of the energy, which you would otherwise have used for pulling with the feet.

[Allan Olesen]

On the second point: Suppose a competitor in an indoor rowing competition, during training, posts 7 minute times on his well-used home unit. This time is at the limit of his strength and endurance. At the official event, on a new machine, with a new cord, he attempts to maintain the same pace, but is unable to because

...which is not the situation being discussed here.

I have nothing further to add. My only purpose of posting here was to inform anyone who might be mislead by your postings. I have done that now, and I see no point in entering into a discussion with you. I have read enough posts by you to know that you can't be moved.

[Gammmmo]

The only thing I can add to this discussion having only skim read some of it is...when I did my last 5K competition on a much newer erg than the one I own personally, I did find SOMEHOW it was harder (within the first 1K while still fresh) even though the DF was the same as I always have it at. I put it down to simply not being "on it" on the day but there has always been some sort of nagging doubt in my mind. This was the result ---->

[Anth_F]

Just been reading a 6 page thread from back in early 2011 on this same argument. And the same person repeating the exact same stuff. It's just he has a new audience this time around

Here is some insider info for those who have not readup on this matter.

Yes, the bungee has served us well over the last 30 years and we have made improvements to it's performance characteristics. As I already stated (and seem to have been misquoted on) we found negligable differences in effort required between ergs with tight vs loose bungees and if anyone has done tests that indicate otherwise I'd certainly be interested.
But the question of handle return means is an interesting one. Recoil springs as found on most lawnmowers have been used but are relatively expensive and not typically designed for millions of cycles of use. A suspended weight has some merit though the issue of inertia and direction change makes implementation somewhat complicated.
I remember a couple of machines that showed some innovation around return force.
One of them used a sort of rack and pinion setup, with a geared bar (I think) attached directly to the handle and engaging a clutched sprocket on the flywheel axle. Pull the handle towards you and the bar drives the flywheel; push the handle away and the sprocket freewheels in the opposite direction of the flywheel rotation. No return spring or weight required. Big drawback: the rod sticking out in front of the machine at the catch- required a lot of floor space.
The other one used a very long handle. The chain attached at the middle of the handle and drove the flywheel much as the C2. But instead of attaching to a bungee the chain went below the seated person, under them and then back up to some pulleys where the chain attached to a spreader bar with ropes attached that would then attach to the ends of the very long handle. So the mechanism was a closed loop, with the person seated between the two ropes coming off the ends of the handle.
If anyone has seen photos of either of these machines (probably from the late 1980s) I'd like to see them.....C2JonW

[Noseve]

Just been reading a 6 page thread from back in early 2011 on this same argument. And the same person repeating the exact same stuff. It's just he has a new audience this time around

we found negligable differences in effort required between ergs with tight vs loose bungees

Thanks - could have done with this about three pages ago...

[Anth_F]

Just been reading a 6 page thread from back in early 2011 on this same argument. And the same person repeating the exact same stuff. It's just he has a new audience this time around

we found negligable differences in effort required between ergs with tight vs loose bungees

Thanks - could have done with this about three pages ago...

LOL!!!! This thread has end up pretty much following the same pattern of the 2011 one... going around in circles then fizzling out.

[johnlvs2run]

Posted by mistake.

[Anth_F]

we found negligable differences in effort required between ergs with tight vs loose bungees

The point was not about tight vs loose bungees, but rather the difference in resistance between new and well broken in bungees.

Well broken in, loose, it's one and the same thing lol. The whole topic is here which is the exact same topic being discussed here.

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=10988#p149985

[jackarabit]

The only return you'd get by holding your feet in the air - which, try it, is not easy to do - is from the railing which ridiculously and dramatically slants to the front. Otherwise, the only way to return rowing strapless is by pulling back with your heels, instead of the much more normal tops of your feet.

Tempting to take this in hand, turn it over one’s knee, and make it squirm but one wonders if it’s worth the trouble? Such an obvious provocation! Channeling the “Old John” just a tad too much, methinks.

[Slidewinder]

On the second point: Suppose a competitor in an indoor rowing competition, during training, posts 7 minute times on his well-used home unit. This time is at the limit of his strength and endurance. At the official event, on a new machine, with a new cord, he attempts to maintain the same pace, but is unable to because

...which is not the situation being discussed here.

It is a completely relevant illustrative scenario related to differences in elastic cord strength - which is what is being discussed here.

Just been reading a 6 page thread from back in early 2011 on this same argument.

we found negligable differences in effort required between ergs with tight vs loose bungees

The point was not about tight vs loose bungees, but rather the difference in resistance between new and well broken in bungees.

When I snugged the old very loose model B bungee up tight to the cage, the resistance was still quite minimal.

Ccmparatively, the new bungee had quite a bit of resistance, no matter how tight or loose that it was.

I suspect that with a search just about every topic discussed in the past several months could be found in the archives. Why is this particular topic open to such mockery because it has been discussed before? Sometimes, with the passage of time, and with new participants, something can be learned by all.

Finally, let us not forget all of the threads in the forum archives in which users complain that they cannot post the same time on different machines. Common to these complaints is that they are always comparing times posted on new machines or machines with replacement cords to well-used machines. Either all of those people have psychological problems, as other forum members claim, or they are experiencing something real.

I am still waiting for all of the naysayers to offer a rational explanation to these people. If the experienced differences are not caused by differences in elastic cord strength, then what is the cause?

[Anth_F]

I admire your dedication to sticking around offering up the same arguments from nearly a decade ago. You should have designed your own erg and corrected this flaw by now.